Climategate scandal gets a Russian front

New fronts are opening up in the Climategate scandal. One is a Russian front. A Russian research agency claims that climate scientists ignored data from that country’s vast landmass and instead cherry-picked evidence to make it look like Russia provided evidence for manmade global warming. Actually, the Russian evidence suggests otherwise. Here is an account, and you can follow the links:

On Tuesday, we heard via the Ria Novosti agency that the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change had probably tampered with Russian-climate data:

The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.

The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.

The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations. They concluded climatologists use the incomplete findings of meteorological stations far more often than those providing complete observations and data from stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations.

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

After all of the appeals to scientific authority, claims that “the debate is over,” and the general elevation of scientists to a superhuman level, it is going to hit the public opinion on science hard when this thing collapses. Anyone interested in salvaging the credibility of the scientific community would be wise to drop this issue.

After all of the appeals to scientific authority, claims that “the debate is over,” and the general elevation of scientists to a superhuman level, it is going to hit the public opinion on science hard when this thing collapses. Anyone interested in salvaging the credibility of the scientific community would be wise to drop this issue.

Bruce Gee

This has been suspected for some time, as the temp data for Russia just didn’t make any sense to skeptic scientists. I think it is about time to release all of the raw data for the world’s scientists to crunch, if that is at all possible (or if it even exists). It is apparent that the gatekeepers of this data can’t be trusted with it. If there is true AGW, then let that be determined by true scientific give and take. If the skeptics’ science is sloppy or inaccurate, that will also become apparent. Right now, we’re whistling in the dark.

Bruce Gee

This has been suspected for some time, as the temp data for Russia just didn’t make any sense to skeptic scientists. I think it is about time to release all of the raw data for the world’s scientists to crunch, if that is at all possible (or if it even exists). It is apparent that the gatekeepers of this data can’t be trusted with it. If there is true AGW, then let that be determined by true scientific give and take. If the skeptics’ science is sloppy or inaccurate, that will also become apparent. Right now, we’re whistling in the dark.